Time... prove it

[Squidster]

The first dimension. A dot. We can tell this dimension is real simply by seeing that the dot exists. Seeing, after all, is believing. The second dimension. The dot gains the ability to moves back and forth to create a line. How can we tell this dimension is real? We see the space itself extend in a direction. We notice that there is fact such a thing as distance. Multiple dots are separated by the second dimension. These first two dimensions are fairly easy to comprehend and explain.

The third dimension. Complexity is added to the issue but we distinguish this dimension the same way we distinguish the second. We add a third dot and add depth. The dots are now separated by the second dimension in two directions. The barrier to understanding this dimension: still space. We can still see the visible distinction between a 2 dimensional world, and a 3 dimensional world.

The fourth dimension. Time. Many dots now combine to form a figure, and this figure can now move. This movement is explained by the passing of time. Can a person move his arm from left to right in a strictly 3 dimensional world? The obvious answer is no… but one must question the distinction between a strictly 3 dimensional and a 4 dimensional world. When observing life itself, it is clear to say we are in at least 3 dimensions. You can see distance, and you can see depth. But can you “see” movement? Can you truly believe in the fourth dimension without seeing it?

Checking your watch has become second nature. Getting to an event “on time” is simply good sense. Timing an Olympic sprint is seen as the way things should be done. But all these actions go under one assumption… that the objects, the people in this 3 dimensional world, are affected by a fourth dimension of time. How has society been so thoroughly convinced that we are in fact moving… that things are in fact changing… and that time is in fact passing? To find the answer we must analyze the implications of past, present, and future.

The present is easy. A solely 3 dimensional world has the present tense, if only that. You look around and realize things are the way they are. That very moment, is proof that there is existence, and that existence is by definition, the present. Once again, the concept is proven by observation. The past however, is a more complex issue. One must answer through memories. We recognize the past because we have memories of what happened. I know I moved my arm from left to right… because I remember my arm being at the left, and now it is at the right. I have memories of it going from point A to point B. By this logic, we recognize that the present is the future of the past. When I was at point A, I was able to predict that my arm would end up being at point B, in the future. This, in a nutshell, is how time has been explained, and accepted as truth.

But is a memory an observation. Can I see the past… can I prove a memory. All I have to work with is the present tense. My mind will try to rationalize the present tense because my mind will always search for answers. How did my arm end up at point B? Am I simply here at point B?

The belief that we simply are where we are with nothing that started it is for most, in fact, for all, not good enough. The mind will automatically find an answer to this question, and this answer is the fourth dimension. By this definition we can see that time actually has no proof. The mind’s rationalization for explaining the present by using the past, in the form of memories, is not factual evidence that the past is real. One can only be convinced of truth by what you see; an observation is the only real answer to a question. Anything else is a guess that may or may not be correct. A memory is in fact, not an observation. It is a rationalization, and therefore may be false.

This means that when I have my arm at point B… I may very well simply have my arm at point B, and be eternally stuck at point B with no way of getting out. How did I get there? Another unanswered question. I could venture a guess and say God put me at that spot, God put everything in the world the way it is an left it there… but realistically, I don’t know. I don’t know WHY my arm is at point B, it just is. I could venture a guess as to how I got there. My mind may tell me I was at point A, and moved to point B. My mind may tell me there is a future in which my arm will eventually be at point C… only time will tell I suppose… but at that moment, at that PRESENT TENSE moment, my arm is at point B.

A few moments pass and my arm is at point C and I have a whole new set of guesses as to how I got there. Does the fact that my memory tells me I was at point B proves that the past tense exists? Was I ever at point B? How do I know to trust my memory? Perhaps I have always been at point C and will in fact always be there, and I never was at point B. Using words like “always,” however, may be deceptive because it insinuates time, but when observing a purely 3 dimensional space, the space stays the way it is. The mind rationalizes that it “stays” this way “always,” but in reality there is no way of proving that it has changed at all. Your memories are false. Your perception of the future, is false.

 

[Dark Hart]

"The mind rationalizes that it 'stays' this way 'always,' but in reality there is no way of proving that it has changed at all. Your memories are false. Your perception of the future, is false."

Do you actually believe this, or this just the statment which you wish to use to start the conversation. Once I know I can start contributing. Not because I wouldn't, but because I want to get all the facts strait before I jump into this.

 

[AltF4]

Time is real. You can stretch it, shrink it, slow it up, speed it down, and even tear it. It is not a made up construct by human imaginations, it is very real.

I'm not sure whether to just tell you to take an advanced physics class or actually explain it, though. It's complicated.

But, yes, there are observations that confirm the existence of time as a dimension. Don't think that something cannot be observed because it cannot be seen. Sight is a very limited form of observation. There are plenty of others.

 

[Stroupes]

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

 

[Squidster]

No I don't actually believe this I just see it as an interesting possibility.

And it brings up the question the question "if it can't be disproven is it true?"

Time is real. You can stretch it, shrink it, slow it up, speed it down, and even tear it. It is not a made up construct by human imaginations, it is very real.

I don't understand how you can think of time other than "it seems to make sense."

@stroupes
That was really awesome... and pretty much explained why its so hard to visualize the 4rth dimension.
I can't really refute that...

 

[e__]

Time is real. You can stretch it, shrink it, slow it up, speed it down, and even tear it. It is not a made up construct by human imaginations, it is very real.

I'm not sure whether to just tell you to take an advanced physics class or actually explain it, though. It's complicated.

But, yes, there are observations that confirm the existence of time as a dimension. Don't think that something cannot be observed because it cannot be seen. Sight is a very limited form of observation. There are plenty of others.

I haven't taken said physics class, but one could argue that said observations are erroneous or a result from a misperception. I consider a lot of the "theoretical" stuff like this a big maybe or giant theory, like imaginary numbers. One cannot definately say that i squared is -1, it is only assumed that it is. It could even be argued that it cannot be that way because to do that means that it would exist. Yes, I know that there are probably other arguments to this, I'm just giving an example.

I have a certain view that we can only currently believe in the exact moment we live in, because the past, and present, cannot be proven to be true. An example of this in my mind is people with extreme psychosis. Sure, we see them as insane, but people with psychosis cannot prove to themselves that anything in the past has actually happened or is really just the brain reproducing hallucinations or even creating false memories. However, no matter how reasonable or realistic these memories may be, they could be false. And, likewise, we cannot prove to ourselves that what we are experiencing now is anything more then a psychotic hallucination and that the certain position we find ourselves in, like how our past has affected us, is anything more then a psychotic hallucination or false memory. Because we can only perceive the exact present, we have no way to prove that anything that has happened has actually happened. Therefore, time is only seen as a theory. I'm even going to be bold enough to say that any proofs shown in physics that time may exist could simply be hallucinations or false memories themselves, as a few seconds later they are nothing more then the past and themselves cannot be proven.

In simple terms: Nothing can be proven to be true based on the fact that we cannot prove that existence and conscious is anything more than chemical reactions. We cannot prove existence itself with our perceptions if we cannot prove that our perceptions are correct.

 

[RDK]

I haven't taken said physics class, but one could argue that said observations are erroneous or a result from a misperception.

If any of the observations we make about the universe could be written off as an erroneous misconception, then, applying that same principle to your arguments, how do you know anything you say isn't a misconception? Which brings us to the point below--

I have a certain view that we can only currently believe in the exact moment we live in, because the past, and present, cannot be proven to be true. An example of this in my mind is people with extreme psychosis. Sure, we see them as insane, but people with psychosis cannot prove to themselves that anything in the past has actually happened or is really just the brain reproducing hallucinations or even creating false memories. However, no matter how reasonable or realistic these memories may be, they could be false. And, likewise, we cannot prove to ourselves that what we are experiencing now is anything more then a psychotic hallucination and that the certain position we find ourselves in, like how our past has affected us, is anything more then a psychotic hallucination or false memory. Because we can only perceive the exact present, we have no way to prove that anything that has happened has actually happened. Therefore, time is only seen as a theory. I'm even going to be bold enough to say that any proofs shown in physics that time may exist could simply be hallucinations or false memories themselves, as a few seconds later they are nothing more then the past and themselves cannot be proven.

This is a ridiculous assumption in itself, but, going with the assumption that this might be true, how do you explain the events or actions of the world around you as being imagined when they agree with or line up with your own actions? We can use the world around us as a basis for comparison when questions like this come up. Besides that, there really is no way of knowing, but making a claim like that borders on the absurd.

In simple terms: Nothing can be proven to be true based on the fact that we cannot prove that existence and conscious is anything more than chemical reactions. We cannot prove existence itself with our perceptions if we cannot prove that our perceptions are correct

But we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt to think so. If what you're saying is true, then what can be done about it? Effectively nothing. It's like the whole induction debate: yes, the scientific method fails by its own standards, but when presented with the alternatives, there's nothing to fall back on that even comes close to the effectiveness of the method we're using.

So the same thing applies to our consciousness. To say that we can't trust our senses to make decisions based on the world around us basically destroys the very same argument you're using.

 

[arrowhead]

I consider a lot of the "theoretical" stuff like this a big maybe or giant theory, like imaginary numbers. One cannot definately say that i squared is -1, it is only assumed that it is.

what? theories are just maybes? do you have any idea how much an idea has to go through to become a theory?

also, i is root -1 because that's how we DEFINED it

I have a certain view that we can only currently believe in the exact moment we live in, because the past, and present, cannot be proven to be true. An example of this in my mind is people with extreme psychosis. Sure, we see them as insane, but people with psychosis cannot prove to themselves that anything in the past has actually happened or is really just the brain reproducing hallucinations or even creating false memories. However, no matter how reasonable or realistic these memories may be, they could be false. And, likewise, we cannot prove to ourselves that what we are experiencing now is anything more then a psychotic hallucination and that the certain position we find ourselves in, like how our past has affected us, is anything more then a psychotic hallucination or false memory. Because we can only perceive the exact present, we have no way to prove that anything that has happened has actually happened. Therefore, time is only seen as a theory. I'm even going to be bold enough to say that any proofs shown in physics that time may exist could simply be hallucinations or false memories themselves, as a few seconds later they are nothing more then the past and themselves cannot be proven.

nice imagination, but our current theories are both mathematically correct and observable. i think i'd rather stick with those

We cannot prove existence itself with our perceptions if we cannot prove that our perceptions are correct.

yes, we technically can't prove that but our perceptions and the perceptions of the machines we build are in line with our theories. we don't need "proof" because we already have overwhelming evidence. that's what science is: keep what works, scrap what doesn't. and it seems to have worked very well so far

 

[AltF4]

This is a non-debate. There is no room for argument, only explanation.

Time is very real. It is something you directly alter no different than the space around you, or the objects within that space. This is not a simple topic that I can explain quickly, it requires a moderate background in math and classical physics.

It's like you telling me that you don't believe in Calculus without ever having taken a Calc course in your life. You clearly only have your belief because you do not understand what you're talking about. No offense.

 

[e__]

If any of the observations we make about the universe could be written off as an erroneous misconception, then, applying that same principle to your arguments, how do you know anything you say isn't a misconception? Which brings us to the point below--

Exactly my point.

This is a ridiculous assumption in itself, but, going with the assumption that this might be true, how do you explain the events or actions of the world around you as being imagined when they agree with or line up with your own actions? We can use the world around us as a basis for comparison when questions like this come up. Besides that, there really is no way of knowing, but making a claim like that borders on the absurd.

Yes, you're right, RDK, and I was unclear in that the viewpoint that everything is wrong is just a theory I have, not a constant viewpoint.

Basically what I said was nothing more then a theory that cannot be proven but simultaneously can be used to disprove any facts. You're right, nothing can be done about it.

But we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt to think so. If what you're saying is true, then what can be done about it? Effectively nothing. It's like the whole induction debate: yes, the scientific method fails by its own standards, but when presented with the alternatives, there's nothing to fall back on that even comes close to the effectiveness of the method we're using.

So the same thing applies to our consciousness. To say that we can't trust our senses to make decisions based on the world around us basically destroys the very same argument you're using.

Again, I agree that this is an absurd theory myself, and it was probably dumb of myself to bring it up, but it's saying that nothing can be proven because we cannot prove that what our senses tell us are correct.

also, i is root -1 because that's how we DEFINED it

My point is that we cannot prove that i squared will actually give us -1 because i doesn't exist. As an example it was meant to lead into that we cannot prove that time and the past is real because we are not sure that the past even exists, because of my bogus psychosis theory.

And arrowhead, my response following my completely bogus theory is that we cannot prove that science and that our current theories that are mathematically correct and the overwhelming evidence is in itself is real due to the inability to prove how our conscious understands things, or even out conscious itself, as true.

Yes, stupid theory, stupid thoughts, but this is probably the better topic to bring it out in. To me the TC seemed as if he was asking how we can prove time and the past is real, and what I said is that we can't because we can't prove anything is real. It's like taking a postulate in math and instead of assuming it's right because we can't find anything to disprove it, we assume it's wrong because we cannot be absolutely sure it's true.

 

[AltF4]

My point is that we cannot prove that i squared will actually give us -1 because i doesn't exist.

Come on, people: Intellectual Honesty.

Have you ever heard of imaginary timelines, or negative probabilities? Yea, they exist. Don't give me a load of BS about how "imaginary things don't exist". They do.

It's unfortunate that the name "imaginary" stuck. But there is nothing imaginary about those numbers.

 

[e__]

Come on, people: Intellectual Honesty.

Have you ever heard of imaginary timelines, or negative probabilities? Yea, they exist. Don't give me a load of BS about how "imaginary things don't exist". They do.

It's unfortunate that the name "imaginary" stuck. But there is nothing imaginary about those numbers.

Imaginary numbers, as I understand them, are a concept, not a reality. However, you've taken advanced physics and I haven't, so I'll assume you in general have a better understanding of math and science than me, take your word for it, and drop the point.

However, it was just an example, not a complete basis for my theory. I think my postulate example is more fitting.

 

[arrowhead]

And arrowhead, my response following my completely bogus theory is that we cannot prove that science and that our current theories that are mathematically correct and the overwhelming evidence is in itself is real due to the inability to prove how our conscious understands things, or even out conscious itself, as true.

It's like taking a postulate in math and instead of assuming it's right because we can't find anything to disprove it, we assume it's wrong because we cannot be absolutely sure it's true.

if you don't assume math, logic, and causality are correct, then everything falls apart. it's pointless to talk about how we shouldn't assert anything because nothing can be proven.

 

[e__]

Ok, then are we all in agreement that I'm out of my mind and we should return/finish the original topic?

I am aware as much as everyone else that the theory contradicts everything (and therefore, itself somewhere down the line).

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Imaginary numbers, as I understand them, are a concept, not a reality. However, you've taken advanced physics and I haven't, so I'll assume you in general have a better understanding of math and science than me, take your word for it, and drop the point.

However, it was just an example, not a complete basis for my theory. I think my postulate example is more fitting.

"i" is a thing that we IDENTIFY with "sqrt(-1)." We can do whatever we want with mathematical constructs so long as they are self-consistent. There are constructs where A*B doesn't equal B*A. Whether they are useful or have applications in reality is another matter. When you build a scientific model, you are attempting to describe reality with the mathematical construct, and the better the model, the better the 'concept' will match up with 'reality.' "i" and noncommutative algebras and a bunch of other things are absolutely essential concepts in mathematical physics, etc.

 

[Squidster]

Yeah calling out math to be fake is a loosing battle... but I still see a possibility for time to be fake. There is no evidence to support this but it cannot be disproven.

It's like you telling me that you don't believe in Calculus without ever having taken a Calc course in your life. You clearly only have your belief because you do not understand what you're talking about. No offense.

I'm not making a blanket assumption based on incomplete knowledge. I recognize that this belief is ludicrous I just think it brings up interesting topics for discussion such as, if someone cannot be disproven, is it true? (theres enough topics on religion but this could be an interesting metaphor)

But I'm just curious how one could go about proving the 4rth dimension. As 3 dimensional creatures we can move freely in that dimension but we are stuck going one way in the 4rth dimension (or so they say O_O) and its therefore very hard to observe. This limitation is what makes this discussion interesting.

And altf4... jw if you could attempt to give an explanation for time. You make it sound like there is a clear cut answer to this question. I may not have taken theoretical physics but I'd just like to know what kind of observations you are talking about.

 

[AltF4]

Sure sure. Let's see... here's a quick rundown.

It all begins with Isaac Newton in the 1700's. Newton created what we now call Physics and Calculus nearly single handedly. He created equations that describe the world we live in to an astonishing degree of accuracy. The world behaves according to mathematical law, and not whim or superstition. And these mathematical laws can be studied and tested.

Newton did such a good job at describing the world through his developments, that no significant change was made until Einstein in the early 1900's. There was a curious discovery with regards to light: no matter how many different ways we tried to measure it, light always traveled at "the speed of light". That doesn't sound so strange at first, but it is! You see speeds are relative. This means that when you say the speed of something, you must say also what it is moving in relation to.

For example: If you are driving on a highway going 75mph, you are traveling 75mph in relation to the road. Compared to the person sitting in the passenger seat of your car, you're not moving at all. And in relation to opposing traffic, you're moving 150mph! Get it?

Well, that's not how light works. No matter how you're looking at it, no matter how fast you're traveling, light always moves at "the speed of light" (approx 186,000 Miles / second). Okay? That part is very very important for this next bit. Anytime you ask the question "how fast is light moving?" The answer is always: The speed of light. (For you nit-pickers out there, we're assuming it's all in a vacuum)

The following is the famous "Light Box Thought Experiment". You can also look this up on just about everywhere on the internet.

Imagine a space ship taking off from earth, moving very fast. While on the ship, an experiment will take place. A crew member will shine a flashlight against a nearby mirror and measure the time it takes for the beam of light to reach him again. In addition a person standing on Earth will also measure the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect off of the mirror and then return. Of course we assume they have perfect stopwatches and proper mechanisms to do this.

What will happen when they perform the experiment? For the man in the spaceship, the light must travel a distance of '2x. (One 'x' for the trip to the mirror, and another 'x' for the trip back) The light must always travel at the speed of light, so it would take 2x/c (c is the speed of light) seconds for the light to bounce off of the mirror and back.

But what does the man on earth measure? You see, for him, the light traveled a greater distance. Not only did the light move back and forth from the mirror, but it also traveled away from Earth. (It's in a spaceship flying away, remember?) So for the man on Earth, the light travels a distance of '2x+y' where y is the distance the spaceship moved away while the light was bouncing. So the amount of time that transpired for the man on Earth is: '(2x+y)/c'

As you can see, more time elapsed for the person back on Earth! Equivalently, less time has gone by during the experiment for the man in the spaceship. Time itself slowed down for the man in the spaceship! Now, if the two men were to get back together and compare what the time says on their wristwatches, they would disagree on what time it is! Even though there is no malfunction in either of their watches.

These discrepancies in time are called: Time Dilations. They are not illusions, they are real. And you can see that the faster the ship moves, the bigger 'y' becomes in our equations. So, the faster you move, the more time will slow down.

Cool, or what?


EDIT: For your information, the equation for the amount of time taken on Earth isn't exactly just "+y", it's a little more complex. It's just easier to write it that way without getting bogged down with math details, you know.

 

[blazedaces]

To expand upon what AltF4 mentioned:

Time is not only affected by our velocity. Gravity or the curvature of space time can also cause time dilation to occur.

To better understand the concept of relativity, let me throw something at you: we all move through spacetime at the same speed. That's right, we all move through space-time at the speed of light. Everything, everywhere.

So, although it's not a direct correlation, can you understand how if you move through space faster, you must slow down your movement through time, and vice versa?

Now, think about what I said above, being in a place with more gravity, where spacetime curves more, would cause us to move through time at a different speed, because the spacetime we're moving through is curved (to imagine this better, try taking a piece of paper and curving it upwards on a table, then drag your finger at a relatively uniform speed across the table and the paper, notice how it takes you longer to move where the paper curves upwards).

All of these time dilation effects have been tested for. It's not quite as simple as just "watches were showing different times". Scientists have tested these with very highly accurate watches and calculated exactly what difference should be between the two watches, and lo and behold, were right!

-blazed

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I should just clarify about time dilation a bit for those who may be seeing it for the first time. The thing is, time is dilated with respect to your (or the inertial) reference frame. You have your own 'proper time.' Going faster won't make you live longer in YOUR estimation, only those of people that you have had a large relative velocity to. That is to say, your own "biological clock" is the same no matter what you do.